NAMITA PAUL Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved, all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment on the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) The facts, in a nut shell, as enumerated in WP(C) No. 686 of 2023, being taken as lead case, are set out separately here-in-below for convenience: WP(C) No.686 of 2023: The petitioner being a Government Contractor and Supplier for the last 20 years has been executing various transportation contracts successfully for carrying food grains/allied materials within and outside the State of Tripura under the Food Corporation of India, the respondents herein. In response to a Notice Inviting Tender, issued by the respondents-FCI she was awarded transport contract for two years for loading/unloading & handling contract at FSD Dharmanagar, Tripura on the basis of agreement executed by the petitioner under appointment letter No. CONT.9/NEFR/HANDLING-DMR/2006, dtd. 31/8/2006 issued by the respondent no.2. It is averred that the petitioner had successfully completed the contract with full satisfaction of the respondents and on satisfaction, the respondents-FCI had issued a "No-Demand Certificate" dtd. 24/2/2009 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the said "No-Demand Certificate" by a communication dtd. 25/2/2009 demanded the respondent no.4 for releasing Rs.1,10,000.00 being the security deposit of the aforesaid contract dtd. 31/8/2006. But, the respondents did not refund the said security deposit to the petitioner till date rather, vide letter No. RO NEF21/13/2023-Contract-RO NEF/21806 dtd. 5/9/2023 issued by the respondent no.3 the claim of the petitioner for refund of Security Deposit amounting to Rs.1,10,000.00 was illegally set off on the plea that they suffered losses due to the fault of the petitioner in connection with other contracts i.e. Contract No.CONT.9/NEFT/TC/CBZ-CDR/09 dtd. 29/4/2009 and Contract No. CONT.9/NEFR/TC/CBZ-ADNR/09 dtd. 12/11/2009. It is contended by the petitioner that the alleged Contract dtd. 29/4/2009 has already been decided by this High Court in a proceeding wherein it has been held that the respondents did not suffer any loss due to fault of the petitioner and in regard to the Contract dtd. 12/11/2009 there is an appeal filed by the respondents before this High Court which is pending.

(3.) Being aggrieved by non-refund of security deposit after repeated persuasions, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.247 of 2022 before this Court to refund the said security deposit of Rs.1,10,000.00 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 25/2/2009. During the pendency of the writ petition the respondents-FCI vide communication dtd. 22/7/2022 informed the petitioner that the security deposit amounting to Rs.1,10,000.00 was set off under Clause XII(e) of the contract agreement for the loss suffered by the respondents-FCI. Learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dtd. 2/5/2023 disposed the said writ petition directing the petitioner to represent the matter before the respondents along with all relevant documents in support of her claim. It is further contended by the petitioner that on receipt of the copy of the said judgment and order, she submitted a detailed representation for consideration of her claim, but, she did not get any redress from the side of the respondents-FCI. Hence, the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition has prayed for following reliefs: